102 
THE NIDOLOGIST 
know,as I have access to but little Ornitho- 
logical literature; but as I have seen 
nothing of the kind, I think perhaps this 
note may be of interest to at least some of 
the readers of THE NIDOLOGIST. 
J. C. GALLOWAY, 
Montgomery, Ohio. 
Thoughts on the New Check List. 
(Concluded.) 
ONSERVATISM as opposed to liberalism is 
( generally regarded as slowness, but is it not 
better to make haste slowly and to be right 
than to act hastily and then have to retrace and 
alter? With laws to act by, why not compare 
with and follow them, and when they fail to meet 
the requirements of advancing knowledge, why 
not change them? 
Mr. C, W. Richmond has recently noticed the 
difference in the spelling of the name of the genus 
Helmitherus as given in the List, and the same 
genus Helmitheros as given by Prof. Baird. He 
very kindly showed me the original spelling as 
used by Rafinesque, and has allow me to use it in 
this connection. But one conclusion can be 
formed, and that is that Prof. Baird was right. 
There is an error also regarding the number of the 
page where this name was first used. Another 
illustration of the same kind is afforded in the 
genus Zhryothorus. Thriothorus is the original 
spelling. Compare the spelling in /unco hyemalis 
aud 7roglodytes hiemalis. Canons XXXI and 
XL of the Code apply with especial force to the 
above cases. 
No. 474] is a nut that needs cracking. Mr. 
Dwight’s use of the name fal/ida antedates Town- 
send’s by several months, also Dwight distinctly 
prints, Ofocoris alpestris pallida Townsend, MS. 
Does Dwight’s mention of the bird constitute a 
description? As intergradation is unknown, what 
objection is to be found to the Ofocoris pallada 
(Townsend MS.), Auk, Vol. III, April, 1890, page 
154? 
If the Committee’s action in eliminating manu- 
script authorities is sustained, then the genus 
Phainopepla should have Baird‘as authority. Mr. 
Richmond tells me that the publication of this 
genus by Sclater occurred in 1859, while Baird’s 
meution is about a year earlier (P. R. Rep. 1X 923, 
October, 1858). 
Common names are not properly an object of 
scientific nomenclature, but as the List contains a 
nanie of this kind for every bird mentioned, it is 
perhaps unnecessary to suggest that their use 
should be, as far as is possible, consistent and 
euphonious. I shall mention but two cases, but 
they will show what I mean. There are two 
genera of Cardinals. Would it not be better to 
call all the species Cardinals, with the addition of 
a word designating the kind? 
Pyrrhuloxia is not a common name, but is used 
in the List as such as a means of getting rid of a 
difficulty. If we cannot call No. 594@a an Arizona 
Cardinal, why not call it Beckham’s Cardinal? 
And No. 5940, why not call it Peninsula Cardinal? 
No. 587a is zof a white-eyed bird. The irides 
are yellowish-cream color, surrounded by a red- 
dish ring. Why not call it the Florida Towhee? 
There are many lapses in the habitats as given 
under the head of geographical distribution. 
Most of them are perhaps due to the widely dis- 
persed nature of the evidence necessary to cor- 
rectly define the habitats, and also the great labor 
necessary to systematically work them out cor- 
rectly, but there are some which may be conven- - 
iently pointed out. Having recently been under 
the necessity of cutting up a list of North Ameri- 
can birds and having arranged the names under 
certain catagories,I have been impressed with the 
impossibility of depending on the wording as 
found under the name of each form, even as 
regards their general distribution. 
Melospiza cinerea does not occur on the Pribilof 
Islands. When Mr. Richmond was preparing his 
recent paper on this species and Melospiza insignis 
we were careful to see that the Pribilof Islands 
were not not mentioned as a habitat for either. 
Dr. Brandt’s specimens there mentioned came, 
I take it, from Kadiak and St. Paul’s Islands, 
both of which are situated on the Aleutian chain. 
A wrong tying on of labels at about the time of 
collecting will account for the difficulty about the 
habitats mentioned by Mr Richmond. During 
several months spent on the Pribilof Islands I 
should certainly have seen this bird if it had been ~ 
there. 
The words ‘‘Pribilof Islands and” should be 
stricken out under No. 272a@. The bird does not 
breed on the islands, is only a rare migrant. To 
be consistent, birds having equal distribution 
range should: be indicated by the use of the same 
language. Birds known to breed in Newfound- 
land and Labrador only should be sostated. A 
bird breeding from Newfoundland and Labrador 
to British Columbia or Alaska should be recorded 
assuch. The language used to show the geogra- 
phical distribution should be concise and plain and 
consistent npon comparisons. 
I wish now to notice a series of conditions 
which many students of ornithology fail to under- 
stand because the masters of science seem to act 
inconsistently. One would naturally think that 
under like conditions a like treatment would be 
made, but this is not always so. 
Canon XI of the Code is as follows: ‘‘Trino- 
mial nomenclature consists in applying to every 
individual organism, and to the aggregate of such 
organisms known now to intergrade in physical 
characters, three names, one of which expresses 
the subspecific distinctness of the organism. from 
all other organisms, and the other two of which 
express respectively its specific indistinctriess 
from, or generic identity with, certain other 
organisms; the first of these names being the sub- 
specific; the second the specific, and the third the 
generic designation; the three, written consecu- 
tively, without the intervention of any other 
word, term, or sign, constituting the technical 
name of any subspecifically distinct organism.” 
Under the same Canon we find the followiag: ‘In 
a word, intergradation is the touchstone of trino- 
mialism.” * * * ‘The system proceeds upon 
a sound scientific principle.’ * * * “Such 
local forms are often extremely different from one 
another; so different, in fact, that, were they not 
known to blend on the confines of their respective 
areas, they would commonly be rated as distinct 
species.” 
Dr. J. A. Allen, in ‘‘A Seven Years’ Retro- 
spect,’ Says, page 5: ‘‘Since conspecific sub- 
specifics often differ more from each otherthan do 
